5 ms·

> But does the professor have a deontological obligation to catch cheating, and to make a good-faith effort to have fair outcomes in which students who studied

> But does the professor have a deontological obligation to catch cheating, and to make a good-faith effort to have fair outcomes in which students who studied and understood the material receive better grades than cheaters? Most courses are either graded on a curve or the material is adjusted in difficulty to target a certain level of challenge. When cheaters come in and destroy that curve and inject false signal into the difficulty feedback loop, the non-cheaters suffer from increased difficulty. So yes, there is some obligation to keep the playing field fair and accurate. Given that grades can have an impact on real-world outcomes (e.g. admission to a desired graduate program) then it’s possible that allowing cheating can have broad impacts beyond the students. Imagine if you took some 4.0GPA students under the assumption that they actually learned what they claim, then discover that they have no idea what they’re doing because they cheated the whole way. Also, the mind boggles at the suggestion that catching cheaters is bad because they might face some consequences for their dishonesty.

BeetleB 3y ago
> Most courses are either graded on a curve or the material is adjusted in difficulty to target a certain level of challenge. Thankfully not the case where I went to university. The bar was clearly set in the first lecture: If your overall score is 90+%, you get an A. 80-90%, a B, and so on. Doesn't matter what your peers do. University is (or should be) about learning, not about competition with peers. When I read the article, my mind was clear: He is not the unethical one. That's assuming no curve. If he is curving, I'm all for any method that messes up the curve, because curves are (generally) a bad idea.
- nodogoto 3y ago
  The person you responded to accounts for uncurved classes in their argument, that cheaters in uncurved classes "inject false signal into the difficulty feedback loop". If the average assignment grades are very high the professor will be inclined to make the assignments more challenging. Cheating disrupts the professor's ability to accurately determine how well their students are grasping the material and adjust accordingly.
  - BeetleB 3y ago
    > The person you responded to accounts for uncurved classes in their argument, that cheaters in uncurved classes "inject false signal into the difficulty feedback loop". We both understood the comment very differently. The "inject false signal" is for curved classes. When you have a curve, your grade depends on how well your peers do. If they are cheating and you are not, you are unfairly at risk for a lower grade. In an uncurved class, your grade is independent of whether your peers cheated or not. > The person you responded to accounts for uncurved classes in their argument, that cheaters in uncurved classes "inject false signal into the difficulty feedback loop". The person you responded to accounts for uncurved classes in their argument, that cheaters in uncurved classes "inject false signal into the difficulty feedback loop". Ah, I see the confusion. For me, this is just "curving by proxy". By uncurved, I meant: The professor decides what students should learn and be able to do with the material, and designs the exam accordingly. If almost everyone gets an A, then it means almost everyone learned the material adequately. Most of my professors did not modify the difficulty of the course/exams/HW based on how well the students did. The exceptions were when the whole class did poorly and no one would have gotten better than a C - then they adjusted to ensure some people got at least a B - but usually not based on a distribution. I have taken at least two courses where no one was granted an A, because the professor felt he had made fair exams, and no one met the bar he deemed to be an A.
    - foldr 3y ago
      >The exceptions were when the whole class did poorly and no one would have gotten better than a C - then they adjusted to ensure some people got at least a B - but usually not based on a distribution. See, that illustrates the problem. If cheating pushes grades up, then the difficulty won't be adjusted, even if no-one would actually have gotten high grades if it wasn't for cheating. The professor might think the test was fine because at least some people got Bs, but what if all those people cheated?
Firmwarrior 3y ago
> Imagine if you took some 4.0GPA students under the assumption that they actually learned what they claim I'm going to stop you right here, my friend. I don't think I or anyone else is going to take on a wet-behind-the-ears new grad and actually expect any substantial amount of competence or knowledge out of them for a real world endeavor. I pissed away a lot of valuable time and effort getting a 3.8 GPA, and it was no help at all in the real world. Hiring managers didn't even remember what it meant. Once I started my first real tech job after college, it turned out that being the top dumb kid out of a group of dumb kids didn't have any effect on how little I knew about getting things done. I actually learned more and more relevant skills from a couple of years of part time web programming in high school than I did from 4 years in a well-respected university

BeetleB 3y ago

> Most courses are either graded on a curve or the material is adjusted in difficulty to target a certain level of challenge. Thankfully not the case where I went to university. The bar was clearly set in the first lecture: If your overall score is 90+%, you get an A. 80-90%, a B, and so on. Doesn't matter what your peers do. University is (or should be) about learning, not about competition with peers. When I read the article, my mind was clear: He is not the unethical one. That's assuming no curve. If he is curving, I'm all for any method that messes up the curve, because curves are (generally) a bad idea.

nodogoto 3y ago
The person you responded to accounts for uncurved classes in their argument, that cheaters in uncurved classes "inject false signal into the difficulty feedback loop". If the average assignment grades are very high the professor will be inclined to make the assignments more challenging. Cheating disrupts the professor's ability to accurately determine how well their students are grasping the material and adjust accordingly.
- BeetleB 3y ago
  > The person you responded to accounts for uncurved classes in their argument, that cheaters in uncurved classes "inject false signal into the difficulty feedback loop". We both understood the comment very differently. The "inject false signal" is for curved classes. When you have a curve, your grade depends on how well your peers do. If they are cheating and you are not, you are unfairly at risk for a lower grade. In an uncurved class, your grade is independent of whether your peers cheated or not. > The person you responded to accounts for uncurved classes in their argument, that cheaters in uncurved classes "inject false signal into the difficulty feedback loop". The person you responded to accounts for uncurved classes in their argument, that cheaters in uncurved classes "inject false signal into the difficulty feedback loop". Ah, I see the confusion. For me, this is just "curving by proxy". By uncurved, I meant: The professor decides what students should learn and be able to do with the material, and designs the exam accordingly. If almost everyone gets an A, then it means almost everyone learned the material adequately. Most of my professors did not modify the difficulty of the course/exams/HW based on how well the students did. The exceptions were when the whole class did poorly and no one would have gotten better than a C - then they adjusted to ensure some people got at least a B - but usually not based on a distribution. I have taken at least two courses where no one was granted an A, because the professor felt he had made fair exams, and no one met the bar he deemed to be an A.
  - foldr 3y ago
    >The exceptions were when the whole class did poorly and no one would have gotten better than a C - then they adjusted to ensure some people got at least a B - but usually not based on a distribution. See, that illustrates the problem. If cheating pushes grades up, then the difficulty won't be adjusted, even if no-one would actually have gotten high grades if it wasn't for cheating. The professor might think the test was fine because at least some people got Bs, but what if all those people cheated?

Firmwarrior 3y ago

> Imagine if you took some 4.0GPA students under the assumption that they actually learned what they claim I'm going to stop you right here, my friend. I don't think I or anyone else is going to take on a wet-behind-the-ears new grad and actually expect any substantial amount of competence or knowledge out of them for a real world endeavor. I pissed away a lot of valuable time and effort getting a 3.8 GPA, and it was no help at all in the real world. Hiring managers didn't even remember what it meant. Once I started my first real tech job after college, it turned out that being the top dumb kid out of a group of dumb kids didn't have any effect on how little I knew about getting things done. I actually learned more and more relevant skills from a couple of years of part time web programming in high school than I did from 4 years in a well-respected university